would, if left to himself, take such a course as would ultimately make his children unsafe members of society. The community have a right to interfere in such a case, as they in fact do by requiring every man to provide for the instruction of his children, and in some other ways which need not now be specified.  Beyond this, however, no interference contrary to the parent’s consent is justifiable.  Where parents will do wrong, notwithstanding any persuasions which we can address to them, we must not violate the principles of an arrangement which God has himself made, but must submit patiently to the awful consequences which will in some cases occur, reflecting that the responsibility for these consequences is on the head of those who neglect their duty, and that the being who makes them liable will settle the account.

Whatever, then, the teacher attempts to do beyond the specific and defined duties which are included among the objects for which he is employed, must be done by permission—­by the voluntary consent, whether tacit or openly expressed, of those by whom he is employed.  This, of course, confines him to what is generally common ground among his particular employers.  In a republican country, where all his patrons are republican, he may, without impropriety, explain and commend to his pupils, as occasion may occur, the principles of free governments, and the blessings which may be expected to flow from them.  But it would not be justifiable for him to do this under a monarchy, or in a community divided in regard to this subject, because this question does not come within the objects for the promotion of which his patrons have associated and employed him, and consequently he has no right, while continuing their teacher, to go into it without their consent.  In the same manner, an Episcopal teacher, in a private school formed and supported by Episcopalians, may use and commend forms of prayer, and explain the various usages of that church, exhibiting their excellence, and their adaptation to the purposes for which they are intended.  He may properly do this, because, in the case supposed, the patrons of the school are united on this subject, and their tacit consent may be supposed to be given.  But place the same teacher over a school of Friends, whose parents dislike forms and ceremonies of every kind in religion, and his duty would be changed altogether.  So, if a Roman Catholic is intrusted with the instruction of a common district school in a community composed of many Protestant denominations, it would be plainly his duty to avoid all influence, direct or indirect, over the minds of his pupils, except in those religious sentiments and opinions which are common to himself and all his employers.  I repeat the principle. He is employed for a specific purpose, and he has no right to wander from that purpose, except as far as he can go with the common consent of his employers.